Sport coaching as a ‘profession’: challenges and future directions
Patrick Duffy, Hazel Hartley, John Bales, Miguel Crespo, Frank Dick,
Desiree Vardhan, Lutz Nordmann, José Curado1
The strategy of the International Council for Coach Education (ICCE) has placed the
development of sport coaching as a profession at the core of the mission of the
organisation. The authors examine the basis for this aspiration against criteria
associated with established professions, taking into account the unique features of
sport coaching. It is concluded that, at a global level, sport coaching does not meet a
number of the traditional hallmarks of a profession, primarily due to its current
position on key descriptors such as purpose, knowledge base, organisation and ethics.
In addition, the lack of fit of traditional ‘right to practice’ provisions within the
established professions is identified as problematic. Sport coaching status categories
include volunteer coach, professional coach, and the preparatory category of precoach. It is suggested that sport coaching should define its future identity as a blended
professional area, operating within the wider field of sport and physical activity. A
series of actions is proposed to advance the international agenda, as part of an ongoing process of professionalization. The implications for the future research and the
strategy of ICCE are also identified.
Key words: Sport coaching; professions; status categories; blended professional area
1
Patrick Duffy and Hazel Hartley, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK; John Bales, Coaching
Association of Canada; Miguel Crespo, International Tennis Federation; Frank Dick, European
Athletics Coaches Association; Desiree Vardhan, South African Sport Confederation and Olympic
Committee; Lutz Nordmann, Trainerakadamie, Köln, Germany; José Curado, Portuguese
Confederation of Sport Coaches.
Address for correspondence: Patrick Duffy, Leeds Metropolitan University, Headingley, Leeds, LS6
3QS, United Kingdom. Phone: 0044-113-812-3638. E-mail: p.duffy@leedsmet.ac.uk
1
1. The emergent concept of sport coaching as a profession
Within a global context, sport plays a significant role in the generation of economic
activity and in the provision of services to spectators, participants, communities,
athletes, coaches, administrators and the corporate sector (Maguire, 1999, 2005;
Maguire et al, 2002). Increasingly, Governments see sport as an important element of
their policy frameworks (Australian Government, 2010; Department of Culture,
Media and Sport, 2002; Government of Ireland, 1998; Green & Houlihan, 2005;
Houlihan, 1997; President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition, 2011; Sport and
Recreation South Africa, 2011). In some cases, legislative frameworks have been
established regulating the operation of sport (Chaker, 1999; Government of France,
2000; Kikulis et al., 1992; Parrish, 2003; Republic of South Africa, 1998, 2007).
More recently, the European Union has issued both a White Paper and an official
communication on sport which sets out the proposed objectives for sport within a
wider social, economic and cultural framework (European Commission, 2007, 2011).
At a global level the influence of the Olympic movement gathers pace, while sport
has also been identified as a vehicle to achieve the millennium goals of the United
Nations (Beutler, 2008).
Within this context, sport coaching fulfils an important social function as part of the
wider sport service sector across the globe (Lyle, 1999, 2002). Anecdotal evidence
suggests that millions of adults deliver coaching sessions to sport participants on a
regular basis, with up to 1.5 million people engaged in coaching in the UK every year
(North, 2009). While the vast majority of these coaches are volunteers, a situation that
is reflected in the majority of countries in the world, the existence of a substantial
body of part-time or full-time paid coaches has been verified in a number of nations.
For example, Australia has recently reported 27,900 full-time coaches, while the
figure for the United States is 217,000 (Duffy, 2009). Within the UK, there are an
estimated 36,537 full-time coaches and 230,765 part-time coaches (North, 2009).
In Germany, there are more than 500,000 people with legal licenses at the German
Olympic Sports Confederation (its membership consist of 27.5 million individual
members in over 91,000 clubs). Over 7.5 million people are involved in assisting
2
sporting activities on voluntary basis. In the sport clubs alone some 2.1 million
voluntary workers carry out 538 million hours of work per year without pay. This
corresponds to a net domestic product of € 8.1 billion (German Olympic Sports
Confederation 2010). Within this context, there are approximately 260,000 licensed
coaches in the fields of participation-oriented sport and performance-oriented sport
(Breuer 2009; Digel & Thiel 2010; German Olympic Sports Confederation 2011). In
the area of high performance there are approximately 1,000 employed coaches and
more than 3,000 coaches working with emerging high performance athletes,
employed within national federations and at the regional level (Nordmann & Sandner,
2009).
The scale and social significance of sport coaching as a paid, part-time paid and fulltime paid pursuit has led to the inevitable examination of its position as a professional
area of activity (Campbell, 1993; Chelladurai, 1986; Duffy, 2010; Lyle, 1986, 2002;
Lyle & Cushion, 2010; Taylor & Garret, 2010; Woodman, 1993). In the earlier years
of these analyses, there was a strong degree of advocacy on the need for core coach
education programmes that brought a stronger scientific and professional orientation
to sport coaching. This perspective reflected the position of two of the authors
(Campbell, 1993; Woodman, 1993), who were responsible for the creation of core
coach education programmes in the UK and Australia respectively. The creation of
such nationally led programmes has also been supported in a range of strategic and
policy publications around the globe, reflecting a broad canvas of support for the
proposition that sport coaching is meritorious of a position alongside other
professions (Coaching Association of Canada, 2011; European Coaching Council,
2007; National Association for Sport and Physical Education, 2008; National
Coaching Foundation, 1991; sports coach UK, 2008; UK Sport 2001).
Following on from the pioneering work done in Canada, Australia and the UK, there
has been an increasing trend to develop large scale programmes for the education and
accreditation of coaches (Mallet, 2010; Trudel, Gilbert & Werthner, 2010). Some of
these initiatives occurred within a context where there has been a stated need or
intention for coaching to become more strongly established as a profession
(Government of Canada, 2002; sports coach UK, 2008). In other cases, coaching was
accorded a central place in the sport systems of, for example, Eastern Europe, Russia
3
and China, with a strong emphasis on the scientific principles of athlete development
and degree level education of coaches (Lyle, 2002; Dasheva, 2011).
The potential impediments facing the emergent profession were highlighted by
Chelladurai (1986) who questioned the feasibility of sport coaching following the
path of more established professions such as law and medicine. Challenges were also
highlighted by Lyle (2002), where the characteristics and boundaries of sport
coaching were laid out in detail. More recently, Lyle and Cushion (2010) collated an
insightful
range
of
contributions
from
authors
around
the
globe
on
professsionalisation and practice, where a range of key issues and theoretical
perspectives led the authors to conclude that ‘this academic field is beginning to look
beyond cultural differences’ to a point where ‘findings are beginning to be aggregated
within a set of conceptual understandings that suggests a more cohesive field’ (Lyle
and Cushion, 2010, p. 251-252). In the same publication, the lead author of this paper
cited the adoption of the Rio Maior Convention (European Coaching Council, 2007a)
as evidence of a greater activation of national and international organisations around a
more common framework of understanding while ‘recognising sport specific
variations, as well as diversity of need among paid and unpaid coaches in the different
nations and continents of the world’ (Duffy, 2010, p. vii).
The trend to focus more strongly on the position of sport coaching as a profession had
been prompted internationally with the creation of the International Council for Coach
Education (ICCE) in 1997 and the adoption of the Magglingen Declaration at a
general assembly meeting involving twenty nine countries (ICCE, 2000). This
Declaration outlined the challenges facing coach education and development,
highlighting the need to ensure that the vital role of coaching was recognised by
governments, sport and the wider community. The Declaration emphasised the
importance of coach education and stressed the need for clarity in the identification of
coaching competencies. The Declaration also highlighted the need to promote
standards of ethical behaviour and the need for mechanisms for monitoring
compliance. The final element of the Declaration advocated the need to work towards
the establishment of coaching as a profession, with the clear implication that such
status had not yet been achieved. Indeed, the Declaration highlighted one of the key
dilemmas inherent to such an aspiration by stating that coach education and
4
development should seek to be inclusive, engaging of all sectors of the community
regardless of race, gender, culture, disability, sexual orientation or religious practice
(ICCE, 2000). The extent to which such inclusivity, including the continued
engagement of large numbers of volunteer coaches in varied social contexts, is
congruent with the modus operandi required to establish coaching as a profession is
an issue that remains to be addressed.
Advocacy to move in the direction of coaching as a profession gathered new pace
within Europe after the adoption of the Magglingen Declaration and in the context of
the convergent policies of the European Union. Supported by a European Commission
funded project, the European Coaching Council (2007) proposed the introduction of a
licensing system for coaches as part of the move towards a regulated profession.
Notably, this proposed development was positioned within the wider professional area
of sport and physical activity. The need for further work on defining coaching as a
professional area of activity was also highlighted, taking ‘account of experiences in
other relevant areas and the emerging legislative frameworks within the European
Union’ (European Coaching Council, 2007, p. 24).
The recent publication of the ICCE strategy (ICCE, 2010, p. 4) has added further
impetus to the debate, with the development of coaching as a profession at core of the
mission of the organisation:
To lead and support the global development of coaching as a profession
and to enhance the quality of coaching at every level in sport, guided by
the needs of members, federations, nations and key partners.
The core sentiment of this mission mirrored the earlier aspiration of the UK Coaching
Framework to establish coaching as a professionally regulated vocation, which
notably stopped short of suggesting that coaching could become a full blown
profession (sports coach UK, 2008). Despite the momentum that is evident to varying
degrees at national, continental and global levels, the extent to which sport coaching
has moved any closer to the status of a profession has not been quantified. Indeed,
there is an absence of hard data from different countries and sports which would
provide any firm basis upon which to evaluate the progress that has been made to
date. Recent research published in the United Kingdom (North, 2009) has provided an
5
important template for the collection of such data and reveals a picture in which only
3 per cent of the total coaching workforce is in full time employment in coaching,
while a further 25 per cent are in part-time paid coaching employment. The remainder
of coaching workforce are, therefore, operating on a volunteer basis. Notably, only
slightly over 50 per cent of all coaches in the study held some form of coaching
qualification from their national federation.
The UK analysis offers a somewhat pessimistic representation of the status of sport
coaching as a remunerated occupation, given that the majority of those involved do
not get paid and almost half do not hold any form of qualification. While it is evident
that such data reflect the length of the journey to be travelled by sport coaching in the
UK if it is to achieve the status of a profession, this is only a representation of the
picture in one country. Other contexts reveal a more robust position, which is
underpinned either by legislative provision and/or a stronger position for coaching in
the workplace (Government of France, 2000; Portuguese Council of Ministers, 2008).
In the United States, where there is no national system for the education and
qualification of coaches, there exists a significant tradition and infrastructure for the
employment of coaches attached to education institutions at the secondary and tertiary
levels. Even here, viable career options are limited (National Association of Sport and
Physical Education, 2011), while the utilisation of the national standards for coaching
has not been as strong as might have been anticipated (Brylinksy, 2011).
In recent years, international federations have become more interested in the creation
of structures to support member nations in the education and qualification of coaches.
The International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) has introduced a Coaches
Education Certification Scheme, which has been mapped against the European
Framework for the Recognition of Coaching Competence and Qualifications (Duffy et
al., 2010). Many other international federations have also made significant progress in
the development of coach education programme (for example, Badminton World
Federation, 2011; Crespo, 2009; Federation Equestre Internationale, 2003;
International Rugby Board, 2011; International Table Tennis Federation, 2007;
International Tennis Federation (ITF), 2009). Here again, a varied landscape emerges,
with some sports focusing on the development of coaches for paid employment,
although the major impetus at international level would appear to be on the
6
development of volunteer coaches, often in countries where limited infrastructure
exists to develop and deliver such support.
In the case of soccer the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
has developed a graded system of licences which are deemed to provide coaches with
increasing capacity to operate at different levels within the professional game, while
making provision for those that coach in a voluntary or part-time capacity (UEFA,
2011). The preparation of coaches in the sports of tennis and golf is geared toward
employment, albeit with a recognition that such coaches operate in a context where
the voluntary engagement of coaches is a supporting, if not central, feature (ITF,
2009; Professional Golfers’ Association, 2011). Despite the emphasis on licensing in
some sports, the extent to which it provides the basis to suspend or exclude would
appear to remain limited, an issue that has important implications for the status of
coaching as a profession.
A significant contribution to the development of coaches through international
cooperation has been made by Olympic Solidarity which provides financial support
for coaches to undertake education programmes in a range of locations around the
globe (Olympic Solidarity, 2011). This support, which exceeds $20 million in each
quadrennial, has been a significant catalyst in the promotion of engagement on
coaching between international federations, national federations and national Olympic
committees. Also at the international level, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
has identified the need to educate coaches in anti-doping issues (World Anti-Doping
Agency, 2011), while UK Sport has initiated a project to support the development of
coach education systems at the community level in developing nations as part of the
London 2012 legacy programme (UK Sport, 2011).
Within such a varied global landscape, where sport and country differences are so
evident, the scale of the challenge facing ICCE and other organisations in the field of
coaching is brought sharply into focus. In order to achieve progress, ICCE has
established two working groups that have been tasked to: i) more specifically identify
the elements of a global framework for the recognition of coaching competence and
qualifications and ii) identify the steps required to lay the foundation for the
recognition of coaching as a profession (ICCE, 2010). Within this context, there is a
7
clear need to conduct a robust assessment of the current position; to chart the issues to
be addressed and to clarify the rationale and terminology associated with the intended
way forward. A key question in this regard is whether sport coaching fits the
conventional models of professionalism that have been developed to date. In order to
consider this question, it is first necessary to establish the emergent conceptual
framework for sport coaching and to critically examine a number of, as yet,
unresolved issues.
2. The current position
Recent years have seen the emergence of a consensus on the sport coaching
terminology employed in the European Framework for the Recognition of Coaching
Competence and Qualifications (European Coaching Council, 2007). This fledgling
consensus was first reflected in the Rio Maior Convention (European Coaching
Council, 2007a) and has generated significant interest since that time. This interest
has been translated into application in the case of a number of countries (Meuken,
2009; Nordmann, 2009; Portuguese Council of Ministers, 2008, 2010; sports coach
UK, 2008;), as well as international federations (Duffy et al., 2010a). The European
Framework has also provided a key point of reference in the development of a global
framework (ICCE, 2011), jointly led by ICCE and the Association for Summer
Olympic International Federations (ASOIF).
The principle features of the European Framework were derived from the application
of a methodology to curriculum development as part of a project funded by the
European Union (Petry et al., 2008) that included ‘professional areas’ of sport
coaching; health and fitness; physical education and sport management. Within this
project, known as AEHESIS (Aligning a European Higher Education Structure in
Sport Science), a four year process of model curriculum development was undertaken
which included literature reviews; expert input and consultative meetings, culminating
in a report at the end of each year and a final process of dissemination (Petry et al.,
2008). In the case of sport coaching, a formal review of the 1999 European
Framework for Coaching Qualifications (European Network of Sport Science in
Higher Education, 1999) was also undertaken, supported by a six-step methodology
that was applied across each of the professional areas covered by the project.
8
In the Review, the professional area of sport coaching was associated with ‘coaching
people within a sport’, thus recognising the principle of sport specificity and reinforcing the pivotal role played by national and international federations in the
education, deployment and regulation of
coaches within their sport (European
Coaching Council, 2007, p. 15). Sport coaching was defined as ‘the guided
improvement, led by a coach, of sports participants and teams in single sport and at
identifiable stages of the athlete/sportsperson pathway’ (European Coaching Council,
2007, p. 5). Within this context, two standard occupations were identified:
participation-oriented and performance-oriented. In each case, there were two further
sub-divisions. Included within the participation-oriented standard occupation were
coach of beginners (child, junior, adult) and coach of participation-oriented
sportspeople (child, junior, adult). The performance-oriented standard occupation
included coach of talent identified/performance athletes (child, junior, adult) and
coach of full-time/high performance athletes. While the sub-divisions within the
standard occupations were not provided with a clear label at the time, more recent
analysis has referred to four coaching domains (Duffy et al., 2010a).
The identification of two standard occupations and four coaching domains marked a
departure from a uni-dimensional view of sport coaching, which had aligned expertise
and qualifications to a performance-oriented paradigm (European Network of Sport
Science and Higher Education and Employment, 1999). The need for such a shift had
first been signalled by Lyle (2002) and subsequently became a strong point of focus in
the work of the European Coaching Council (2007) and the AEHESIS project (Petry
et al., 2008). This shift in thinking was also reflected in academic work on the nature
of coaching excellence and expertise. Trudel and Gilbert (2006) suggested that the
education of coaches should be more strongly oriented towards the context in which
coaches operate. Reflecting this more segmented approach, Côté, et al (2007, p. 4)
proposed that the definition of coaching excellence be multi-faceted in nature and
‘should describe the competences that coaches require when interacting with athletes
of various competitive levels and in various sporting contexts’ as well as being
referenced against the ‘correlates of excellence’ among teachers.
9
The work of the European Coaching Council (2007) also focused on the process by
which coaches develop their expertise, reflected in the identification of progressive
coaching roles. Referring to the work of Ericsson et al. (1993) and Berliner (1994),
the European document described four stages of coach development; early; middle;
late; innovate. These stages were translated into four roles (apprentice; coach; senior
coach; master coach) that could be applied across the two standard occupations and
the four coaching domains. Notably, it was suggested that coaching roles could be
carried out in volunteer; part-time and paid contexts. While this approach recognised
the reality of coaching in many countries, it did not come to grips with the inevitable
variations in motivation; hours of practice and remuneration associated with coaches
operating in each of these contexts. It would appear, therefore, that a gap in the
European work relates to the status of the coach, an issue that will be addressed later
in the paper. Figure 1 summarises the key terms utilised by the European Coaching
Council (2007), with the inclusion of the term coaching domain (Duffy et al., 2010a).
10
Figure 1
Core concepts (adapted from the European Coaching Council, 2007 and
Duffy, Petrovic, Crespo, 2010)
•Coaching people within a sport
•Coaching defined as the guided improvement, led by a coach, of sports participants and teams in single
Professional sport and at identifiable stages of the athlete/sportsperson pathway
area
Standard
Occupations
Coaching
domains
•Participation-oriented
•Performance-oriented
•Coach of beginner (child, junior, adult)
•Coach of participation (child, junior, adult)
•Coach of talent (child, junior, adult)
•Coach of full-time/high performance athletes
•Apprentice Coach
•Coach
•Senior Coach
Coaching role •Master Coach
Coaching
status
•Although the status categories were referred to, they were not defined, nor was their impact on coaching
practice profiles addressed
•Actvities: training; competition; management; education
•Tasks: plan; organise; conduct; evaluate
Competence •Competences: knowledge; skills; personal/professional/ethical; generic/underpinning/key
framework
The European Coaching Council (2007) also proposed a move away from the direct
equation of coaching roles and coaching qualifications, recognising the need to map
competences against the specific requirements of context dependent roles. In this
regard, the need for sport and country specific application was also highlighted and a
detailed set of reference points was provided. These reference points reflected an
early view of the core building blocks of coaching expertise and included the
identification of tasks; activities and competences associated with each of the
coaching roles across the four coaching domains.
11
This ‘competence framework’ has provided a useful point of reference, although there
is a clear need for a more robust and evidence-based model of coaching expertise and
development. For example, Côté and Gilbert (2009) have suggested that professional
knowledge; inter-personal knowledge and intra-personal knowledge are central to
coaching expertise. The potential application of such classifications across the
coaching domains and in different sport and country specific contexts requires further
work and will inform a more informed definition of coaching expertise and the
‘practice’ categories that contribute to the development of such expertise. This further
research work will be central to further advancing the position of sport coaching,
particularly when the stringent criteria associated with traditional professions are
taken into account.
3. Traditional models of the professions
To date, the primary focus in the debate on sport coaching as a profession has been
positioned against traditional models of the professions, with a growing recognition
that direct comparison may not be appropriate (Taylor & Garret, 2010). In the past,
this has resulted in comparisons being made with medicine, law, teaching and other
professional areas. Given the context outlined above, where it has been seen that sport
coaching is primarily delivered on a volunteer basis around the globe, there is a need
to recognise that traditional models of the professions may be appropriate for some
sections of the diverse range of groups engaging in sport coaching in a global context.
Such a re-examination provides the basis for a more rigorous analysis of how sport
coaching might deliver high quality experiences at the front-line, underpinned by
professional standards and recognising the unique features of an activity that at once
engages enthusiastic parents and committed life-long paid professionals. This
approach is built on the premise that sport coaching comprises an inter-related set of
standard occupations, roles, domains and status categories that are linked through a
common purpose and social function. In the section that follows, a synopsis of
literature relating to the criteria associated with the professions is provided, which
will provide the basis for assessing the indicative status of sport coaching. Key
elements of this synopsis mirror a parallel analysis on sport development in which the
second author of the current paper is involved, reflecting the common ground that
12
needs to be addressed within the broader professional field of sport and physical
activity (Hylton & Hartley, 2011).
Criteria associated with the professions
Recent analyses in the wider literature have recognised the complexity associated
with defining the professions. Khurana (2010, p. 1) viewed a profession as a ‘process
of an interacting network of institutions and people, not a checklist of attributes’.
Professions may themselves also, at an operational level, develop further specialist
groups and may be subject to rationalisation, re-stratification or re-professionalisation
(see for example, Becher, 1999; Broadbent et al, 1997; Brock et al., 1999; Pickard,
2009). Yet, in facing the important task of distinguishing a ‘profession’ from other
groups, almost all the literature on the nature of a profession tends to focus upon a set
of knowledge, skills, attributes and values. Williams (1998, p. 18) is typical of this
common approach when he suggested that to be a profession a discipline should have:
a defined scope, stating that the profession’s purpose and goals,
qualifications for education, experience and professional development, a
code of conduct to guide what should, or should not, be done under given
circumstances, recognised certification that requires maintenance and
standards that are consistent with peer groups.
Members of a profession have some degree of exclusivity. They enjoy a range of
privileges as well as a monopoly on providing a particular public service. In addition,
the members of a profession merit social and more importantly, legal recognition,
which legitimizes their authority and autonomy, and are are paid a salary
commensurate with a particular level or role in that profession (Lindop, 1982;
Millerson, 1964; Sockett, 1985; Warrior, 2002; Wilensky, 1964). Such exclusivity
and restrictive membership can attract critical attention in the areas of power,
diversity, access in training, career development and exclusionary sub-cultures
(Edwards, 2006; Kennedy, 1992; Sommerlad, 2003, 2009). This criterion of
exclusivity has particular implications for sport and coaching and will be returned to
later in the paper.
The Australian Council for the Professions (2004, p. 1) has focused on ethics and
social responsibility in its definition of a profession as:
13
A disciplined group of individuals who adhere to ethical standards and
uphold themselves to and are accepted by the public as possessing special
knowledge and skills, in a widely recognised body of learning derived
from research, education and training at a high level, and who are prepared
to exercise this knowledge and these skills in the interests of others.
Inherent in this definition is the concept that the responsibility for the
welfare, health and safety of the community shall take precedence over
other considerations.
Cruess et al (2004, p. 75) also identified some of these components in defining a
profession as ‘an occupation whose core element is work based on a mastery of a
complex body of knowledge and skills’ where science, learning or art is used ‘in the
service of others, and members are ‘governed by a code of ethics’ where members
‘profess a commitment to competence, integrity and morality, altruism and the
promotion of the public good within their domain’. There is some kind of ‘social
contract between a profession and society’ which grants the profession a ‘monopoly
over the use of its knowledge base’ as well as autonomy and the ‘privilege of self
regulation’ (Cruess et al., 2004, p. 75). Earlier work by Burbules and Densmore
(1991) identify a profession by autonomy and:
a clearly defined, highly developed, specialized and theoretical knowledge,
control of training, certification and licensing of new entrants; selfgoverning and self-policing authority, especially with regard to
professional ethics and members show a commitment to public service.
Professionals are also expected to understand, follow and apply an ethical code of
practice framed within and regulated by the profession (Hall, 1969; Larson, 1997;
Millerson, 1964). Professional Codes of Ethics are often based on deontology
principles and virtue ethics (Hartley & Robinson, 2006). Deontology focuses upon
uncontestable rights and duties in the areas of welfare, harm, autonomy and equality
associated with being human. Welfare and harm can refer to physical, psychological,
emotional and economic harms and can apply to the integrity and spirit of a sport
contest. Virtue ethics recognises a community of practice and shared values in a club,
team, organisation or profession (Hartley & Robinson 2006). There are opportunities
for inter-disciplinary enquiry in coaching degrees, coach education and continuous
professional development (CPD), using philosophy, sociology and law in
understanding and challenging the normalisation of inappropriate behaviour in for
example, violence, sexual exploitation and abuse, and bullying all of which may occur
14
in sport and coaching contexts. Simply having a code of ethics is not sufficient to be
regarded as a profession. The ability of a professional to make difficult ethical
decisions, drawing on intellectual, research and policy domains is often tested in the
face of considerable pressures in the workplace. Normally a degree of autonomy and
some system of support or supervision are expected, which rely upon considerable
resources and established processes.
Hardman et al. (2010, p. 357) use virtue ethics and argue that sport coaches are
centrally located in the moral development of participants, where sport practices:
require attention to the pursuit of particular kinds of goods that necessarily
demand the exercise of judgements that are of a moral nature and, thereby,
provide its practitioners with the opportunity to cultivate certain kinds of
moral virtues.
Notably, Stirling (2009) found that 78% of sport coaches had witnessed emotional
abuse and 68% had witnessed bullying, with 68.3% believing they would benefit from
further education on emotional abuse and 67.1% would benefit from further education
on bullying. In addition, 69.2% identified a need for further education on
‘irresponsible coaching’, 68.1% on risk management, and 68.8% on violence. Initial
coach education and systematic long-term CPD in the areas of legal and ethical
aspects of sport coaching are essential to support the professionalisation of sport
coaching.
A professional body has the power to temporarily suspend and/or expel a member
from the profession (Barker, 2010; Perkin, 1985; Warrior, 2002). This requires
considerable authority, expertise, significant resources and a degree of impartiality
and independence from the other functions of a professional body. Can sport coaching
provide the equivalent of, for example, the General Medical Council in the United
Kingdom, which has all of these characteristics? Alongside this provision, the kind of
membership of organisations such as the Medical Defence Union or the British
Medical Association is very costly, but is expected to provide significant legal
expertise and representation.
15
A profession is thought to have a ‘crucial social function’ doing something for
society, providing a recognised service to the public or clients, often personal and
confidential (Barker, 2010; Sockett, 1985, cited Warrior, 2002, p. 58). Being a
member of a profession is often associated with an altruistic attitude, a concern for
public welfare, personal responsibility, commitment and intrinsic values (Lindop,
1982; Patton, 1994; Smith & Westerbeek, 2004; Vollmer & Mills, 1962; Warrior,
2002). Hall (1969) cited Hylton, (2010), includes in a profession ‘common
professional culture of norms, symbols and values.’ This has strong links with Virtue
Ethics (Hardman 2010; McIntyre, 1982). It is assumed that the public have a certain
degree of trust in a profession, although this can change in different eras and contexts.
Professions are also characterized by a high degree of skills, drawing on intellectual
and specialised knowledge and expertise (Barber, 1965; Kresjler, 2005; Larson, 1997;
Vollmer & Mills, 1962). Of particular significance to sport coaching in this debate,
the development of the expected level of knowledge and competence usually involves
a university degree, often followed by a post-graduate qualifications and lengthy,
expensive, and supervised training, both generic and in recognised specialities, as in
medicine, surgery and law. The profession will normally set requirements for certain
areas to be included in university undergraduate degrees and post-graduate courses. In
order to remain licensed to practice, members of a profession are expected to maintain
appropriate standards and keep up to date. This is normally through a range of
recognised continuous professional development courses, with an allocation of points
per seminar/course by the professional body (Williams, 1998).
Established professions include medicine, dentistry, architecture, law, pharmacy,
engineering, surveying and accountancy. Some of the authors of this paper, in a
contribution to the on-going discussions around sport coaching as a profession,
recognised that this debate was also in train in other areas as well (Duffy et al., 2010).
Occupations which have considered the possibility, desirability or challenges of
becoming a profession include management, sport management, sport development,
executive coaching and public relations (Duffy, 2009; Edwards, 2006; Hawkins,
2008; Hylton, 2010; Mills, 1994; Reed & Anthony, 1992; Rostrok, 2009; Smith &
Westerbeek, 2004; Soucie, 1994). It would be useful in networking with relevant
professions and bodies in sport and physical activity, to learn from those who are or
16
have been on similar journeys to seeking partial or full recognition as a ‘profession’
and indeed to draw upon or commission research into such experiences.
Indicative status of sport coaching
The foregoing analysis, though not exhaustive, provides an important basis upon
which to assess the current status of sport coaching against a number of criteria. This
approach is taken in the full knowledge that significant limitations remain in the
consideration of sport coaching as a profession, some of which have recently been
summarised by Taylor and Garret (2010). They argue against the use of defined lists
of characteristics and advocate a focus on ‘an evolving ideology that helps mould and
guide practice and interaction.’ The same authors also highlight ‘the inherent lack of
clarity surrounding coaching, in terms of its own absence of definition, identity and
conceptual boundaries’ They also posit that unity and integration within sport
coaching is a difficult proposition, given the different starting points of the various
sports, as well as the influence of ‘commercialism, market interaction and state
regulation (Taylor & Garret, 2010, p. 101).
Bearing these limitations in mind, the case in this paper is built on an emerging
international consensus on the need for greater clarity on what sport coaching is; how
it operates; what education and qualifications are required for different roles and what
are the building blocks that can be identified to create a more common language and
discourse across sports and countries. This process will provide the basis for a greater
degree of consensus on a collective ‘professional identity’, a term adapted by the
current authors and which was most recently deployed by Hylton and Hartley (2011)
in looking at the professional status of sport development, where the diversity of
volunteer and paid roles was recognised.
Such an approach also supports the identification of the tangible steps that might be
taken to further advance a process of professionalization in sport coaching (Hylton &
Hartley, 2011; Taylor & Garret, 2010). Notably, an analysis that addresses the core
criteria associated with the professions provides the basis for sport and country
specific responses, while laying the foundation for a more common platform between
sports and countries. This approach will, it is argued, facilitate the development of a
stronger and more precise sense of professional purpose, identity and standards at an
17
international level through the activities of the ICCE. This process might also assist in
moving beyond a situation where coaches being ‘recognised’ for what they do to a
more tangible sense of this work being truly ‘appreciated’ in a way that has meaning
for the coach and the sport within they operate.
Table 1 presents the indicative status of sport coaching in an international context
against the traditional criteria associated with the professions. The indicative status
has been derived from the review of literature outlined in the previous section; the ongoing work of ICCE, including the consultations undertaken as part of its strategy
development; as well as the observations of the authors across a range of countries
and contexts. The authors of the current paper have also drawn on the analysis of
Taylor and Garrett (2010, pp. 99-117) which provides a detailed assessment of how
coaching measures up against the ‘quintessential characteristics or attributes’ of
professional groups: knowledge base; organisation and a set of ethics. A dimension
has also been added to these three headings, relating to social function and purpose.
The comprehensive treatment of issues relating to professionalization and practice
compiled by Lyle and Cushion (2010) and linked to the wider processes of the
European Coaching Council and ICCE by one of the current authors (Duffy, 2010)
has also helped to guide our analysis.
In presenting the indicative status, the authors are proposing a framework that may
assist in guiding the future focus of ICCE on the issue of professionalization, while
highlighting the need for application and further research on a sport, country,
continental and global basis. This analysis is also informed by a perspective that
increasingly recognises the unique characteristics of long term coach development
and which prompted one of the authors to recently present to the effect that formal
coach education, CPD and experiential learning are variously contributors to a
lifelong process of balancing the ‘science of coaching’ with an evolving ‘art of
coaching’, with the suggestion that the knowledge criterion for coaching may have a
different profile, then, than other professions in any event (Dick, 2011).
18
Table 1
Indicative status of sport coaching against the traditional criteria associated
with professions
Criterion and rating
Indicative status within sport coaching
Purpose: Defined purpose and
‘crucial’ social function, taking
responsibility for the welfare,
health and safety of the
community it serves.
Emerging consensus on the core purposes of sport coaching across two
standard occupations and four domains, aligned to participant need and
stage of development. Acting in the interests of others is core to the
emerging definition, with a social function across sport participation;
child development; talent development and high performance.
‘Crucial’ social function not established and connections with wider
field require development.
Sport specific and practitioner ‘on the job’ knowledge is strongly
emphasised, with increasing links to education and research. Emerging
consensus on coaching expertise, with significant research still
required. Boundaries with sport science, physical education,
performance management and other related areas still in development.
Varied position on education, certification and qualifications across
sports and countries. Degree level qualifications in coaching are not
the norm, although many coaches hold degrees in related or other
fields. Cross-referencing sport coaching education with undergraduate
level starting to emerge in some countries, but very little on postgraduate CPD and specialist career progression as in medicine/surgery
or endorsement system by a professional body
Varied position on exclusivity and recognition across the different
coaching status groups. High inclusivity and low social recognition
among volunteers. High exclusivity among paid professionals in high
performance sport. Low legislative recognition, with some exceptions.
Mixed status with many variations on paid, part-time and volunteer
roles, often with fragmented career/development pathways
Status: moderate-strong
Knowledge base: Defined body of
knowledge and skill, derived from
education, training and research.
Status: moderate
Knowledge base: Education,
certification, qualifications at
degree level and post graduate
level
Status: weak
Organisation: Exclusive group
with privileges, a ‘right to
practice’, social and legislative
recognition, paid employment
status.
Status: weak
Organisation: License to practice
with
on-going
continuous
professional development.
Status: weak
Organisation: Interacting network
of people and institutions.
Status: weak-moderate
Ethics: Culture of norms, symbols
and values that promote trust.
Status: moderate
Ethics: Autonomous and ethical
decision making by practitioners.
Status: moderate-strong
Ethics: Self regulation
Low level of licensing, with variations between sports and countries
and some notable exceptions. No provision or resourcing of an
independent body to discipline, suspend, expel/take away licence to
practice.
Evident at an operational, sport specific level. Limited between sports
unless a coordination mechanism exists (such as a lead national
organisation). Weak at the level of coaches’ associations. Limited in
interaction with the wider profession of sport and physical activity.
International sport coaching network developing through ICCE, ECC
and international federations.
Sport and country specific differences remain high, with varying
degrees of trust and confidence.
Front-line coaching involves a high degree of decision-making, with a
growing recognition in the coaching literature of the importance of
decision-making (and for an analysis see Lyle, 2010). Ethical
framework for decision making within coaching, as well as enhanced
focus on such decision making in the development of coaches, is
required
Viable coaches’ associations slow to emerge. Sport specific regulation
is varied and includes ‘the voice of the coach’ to varying degrees.
Right to sanction not well developed.
Status: weak
19
Table 1 highlights a varied and relatively weak profile of sport coaching against the
traditional criteria associated with the professions. The core purpose and social
function of sport coaching is deemed to have a moderate profile on the basis of the
established position of coaches within many contexts, as well as the emerging
conceptual framework identified earlier in this paper. However, despite the
widespread engagement of coaches across the sporting landscape, it would be difficult
to make the assertion that coaching is seen as a crucial function across the globe, on a
par with areas such as teaching and medicine, either by policy makers or the public at
large. In the majority of countries, career pathways for coaches remain limited,
nothwithstanding important exceptions in some sports and countries.
The organisation of sport coaching is deemed to be weak by comparison with the
established professions, with no widespread application of a ‘right to practice,’ sparse
legislative arrangements and fragmented career structures. This scenario is further
reflected in sporadic and inconsistent approaches to the licensing and registration of
coaches, supported by structured processes for continuous professional development.
There are few instances where suitably resourced and independent bodies have the
power to discipline or remove coaches from their role. This lack of organisation at a
professional level is somewhat counter-balanced by a wide-reaching network of
national and international federations, supported by a range of national and
international organisations. It is these networks that have been at the forefront of
establishing a more coherent approach to coaching, with a clear need for further
development and consolidation within and between sports and nations.
Despite this organisational context, the operation of sport coaching is driven by a set
of norms, standards and values that are embedded in day-to-day practice. While there
are undoubted instances of poor practice, most sports have established clear rules and
regulations on the rudimentary aspects of coaching behaviour as part of the
codification of their sports. As part of the dynamic nature of the coaching
environment, coaches typically make decisions on an on-going basis, albeit with a
need to further enhance the evidence and ethical base for such decisions. However,
despite the self responsibility at the level of the sport and the coach, the absence of a
self-regulatory process that deals with inappropriate actions on the part of coaches
remains a very serious limitation. Notwithstanding the many positive experiences
20
provided by coaches, the need to address cases where coaches abuse trust and fail to
respect the integrity of the participants whom they coach remains a top priority if the
professional area is to command a position of respect and trust. In order to more
systematically challenge breaches of ethics, there is a need to further deepen our
commitment to research informed practice. In this respect, research on power, subculture and risk by, among others Brackenridge (2001) provides a useful point of
reference and there is clearly a need for wider international discussion and research in
these areas as part of the balanced assessment of the current position within sport
coaching. In this vein, the draft coaching charter developed by Dick (2010) provides
an important potential mechanism to operationalise the rights and responsibilities of
coaches wishing to be deemed professional in and through their behaviour and
practice.
While the overall profile against the traditional professions is deemed to be weak,
much of this profile is precipitated by the sheer scale and diversity of coaching in a
wide range of sports across the globe. This level of penetration and inclusivity is a
great strength, notwithstanding the reality that many groups remain under-represented
in both sport participation and coaching. The challenge, however, is to face up to a
realistic assessment of what sport coaching is, what it is not and what it wishes to be
in the future. Such an assessment will provide the basis for creating a professional
identity which is faithful to the essence of sport coaching and will help to strengthen
its social function.
4. Challenges for sport coaching
From the consideration of the characteristics of the traditional professions in the
previous section, it is apparent that there are a number of significant impediments to
the positioning of sport coaching alongside such models. Is the professional model
that is used in these other professions right for coaching? Does it best serve the
coaches, the athletes and the sport community?
Coaching has evolved in very
different ways from the regulated professions. In many countries, there can be very
early entry into coaching activities, with high school-aged youth assuming coaching
roles in the introduction of young children into sport, and late entry by athletes who
may continue to compete until their late 30s and 40s and then decide to coach, and by
parents who assume volunteer coaching roles for their children’s teams.
21
A first, and fundamental, barrier to a direct comparison with other professions relates
to the right to practice, as outlined by Findlay and Corbett (2002, p. 25):
As a profession, coaching has not established an exclusive “right to
practice” and thus exists in a world far removed from professions such as
accounting, medicine, engineering, law and nursing. In these professions,
an individual must be a member of the professional body in order to
practice the occupation.
As has been illustrated in the previous section, the established professions fiercely
protect and differentiate themselves from non-professionals, and in fact create a
monopoly where only members of the profession can practice. This monopoly – the
exclusive right to practice - allows the profession to set and enforce standards of
practice, while preventing anyone else from undertaking the functions of that
profession. But is this a feasible or desirable approach in sport coaching, where many
sport programmes rely on volunteer coaches to provide access to sport, especially for
children?
Volunteer coaches provide a workforce that allows communities and clubs to offer
sport programmes at a low cost, and those coaches are often highly committed,
undertake coach training, and may progress to working with advanced athletes. Their
core education, however, may be in entirely different fields than sport, and they often
do not have the university degree in coaching required for a profession. Also, former
professional athletes have often sacrificed the opportunity to study at university in
order to develop their expertise and achieve excellence in sport and are lacking in
these professional qualifications, but they are often considered preferred candidates
for paid coaching jobs. The balance between formal qualifications and practical
experience in the field would seem to be significantly different in coaching than the
other professions, that have neither volunteers nor the opportunity for the prime
candidates for future jobs to spend ten plus years acquiring experience in the unique
environment of elite sport instead of in academic study.
In the regulated professions, practitioners usually complete a university degree as
required by the professional body and then proceed with entry-level employment and
completion
of
the
other
requirements
of
that
profession
(work
experience/articling/medical residency etc, examinations, code of ethics and
22
membership in the professional body). There is a need for additional research on how
this compares to coaching, and how prevalent the exceptions are. There are no doubt,
significant differences among countries and sports. The former eastern European
socialist countries had followed a model very similar to the other professions, with
university degrees leading to entry level coaching jobs, but in many cases are now
turning to volunteer coaching as a larger proportion of the total coaching workforce.
For example, in Bulgaria, it is estimated that 32 per cent of the coaches are full-time,
45 per cent part-time and 23 per cent volunteer (Dasheva, 2011), while France has
made provision for compulsory qualifications in the case of paid coaches
(Government of France, 2000).
In looking at the overall coaching terrain – it is apparent that there are wide variations
across the standard occupations, coaching domains; roles (pre-coaching; assistant
coach; coach; senior coach; master coach); status (full-time, part-time and volunteer),
qualifications (degree in coaching; certification in coaching) and experience levels of
the coaches. In this context, rather than trying to separate and differentiate the
professional coach from the non-professional to protect the ‘exclusive right to
practice’, a blended model of professional identity is suggested. Such a model,
currently under discussion in South Africa recognises the existence of discrete yet
inter-related coaching status categories; professional, volunteer and pre-coaching
(South African Sport Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC), 2011). This
approach suggests that the professional coach ought to play a leadership function in
terms of role modelling and in support of coaches in the earlier stages of their
development. The discrete nature of status categories provides a basis upon which the
roles, responsibilities, practice profiles, qualification and registration/licensing
requirements can be more clearly articulated. Crucially, this approach moves away
from ‘one size fits all’ to a recognition of the different motives and deployment
circumstances of coaches. An additional advantage is that sport and country
specificity may be accommodated, given the propensity in some cases to rely entirely
on paid coaches, whilst in others the balance is strongly towards volunteer input.
Figure 2 illustrates the suggested model.
23
Figure 2 – a blended model of professional identity in sport coaching
(adapted from SASCOC, 2011)
Professional
Volunteer
Pre-coach
Pre-coach
Volunteer
Coach
Professional
coach
•These roles will support assistant coaches and coaches in children’s and participation
domains. Pre-coaching roles are often played by parents or young adults in helping out with
coaching, without having made a commitment to play a coaching role or to obtain formal
qualifications. These roles are voluntary and provide an important pathway into coaching, as
well as supporting the delivery of coaching at local level. The roles are subject to basic safety
and child protection guidelines and should operate under the supervision of a qualified
coach. Many sports participants also play pre-coaching roles, supporting or taking on the
role of the coach on occasion.
•These roles will include Apprentice Coach and Coach roles that are carried out on a
volunteer basis in children’s; participation; performer development and high performance
domains. Minimum standards in relation to safety; child protection and qualifications will
apply to these coaching roles. All those playing coaching roles will be expected to register
with their national federation and to comply with a Coaches Code of Ethics and Good
Practice. Volunteer coaches will also have a responsibility to support the deployment and
development of pre-coaches.
•Professional coaches will include all coaches who are paid in any coaching capacity. It will
also include coaches operating at senior and master coach levels across the four coaching
domains, whether in a paid or volunteer capacity. Volunteer coaches operating in these
more senior roles will be regarded as ‘professional volunteers’. All professional coaches will
be expected to comply with minimum standards in relation to safety; child protection and
qualifications. They will also be subject to a licensing process that will be introduced on a
sport by sport basis and in the context of a core set of guidelines. Professional coaches will
adhere to Professional Coaches Code of Ethics and Good Practice and will have a key
responsibility to support the development of other coaches.
24
The diagram, by using the analogy of a set of gears, depicts the interdependency
among the different coaching status categories.
Rather than differentiating and
separating themselves from the other groups, the professional coaches take the
responsibility to lead the system, to articulate with the volunteer coaches and through
them the pre-coaching volunteers. Instead of working to the day when only
professionals can practice coaching, this model positions the professional coach as the
public advocate for sport and coaching, with the responsibility to encourage people to
take on pre-coaching and volunteer coaching roles; to act as a coach developer and to
improve the standards of those roles as part of a fully functioning system and to
widen, rather than restrict, involvement in sport participation and coaching.
Interestingly, the ‘blended’ concept might also assist in exploring how coaches often
call on the qualifications and expertise gained from related areas to underpin their
coaching philosophy, skills and style.
This approach would lead us more towards an approach of professionalism, which all
coaches regardless of their status can aspire to, rather than a regulated profession.
Suitable qualifications, adherence to codes of ethics, disciplinary procedures and
continuous professional development can all be defined and set as requirements
suitable for the status categories of coach, depending on the role and coaching domain
within which they operate.
Crucially, among professional coaches, the right to
practice would be contingent upon the attainment of a defined and rigorous level of
expertise and qualification. Equally, the scourge of unrealistic expectations and/or
lack of clarity concerning the requirements to undertake volunteer and pre-coaching
roles can be more conclusively addressed.
A further issue relates to the term profession. In the previous section, the criteria and
characteristics associated with established professions were identified. In reviewing
these developments, it is not clear at all that sport coaching per se qualifies as a
profession in and of itself. For example, primary teachers or doctors are regarded as
professionals within wider professional field of teaching and medicine respectively.
The teaching profession is broadly concerned with promoting the education of the
school-going population, while the medical profession is to intervene to support the
health of the nation in a range of different clinical contexts.
25
By way of comparison, sport coaching is part of a wider sphere which aims to engage
the population in sport and physical activity through a variety of modes in both
recreational and competitive contexts. Duffy and Dugdale (1994) argued that the
broader field is ‘physical activity,’ while more recently the European Union has used
the term sport to cover both formal sport and health enhancing physical activity
(European Union, 2007). In this context, it is somewhat ambitious to suggest that
sport coaching in itself can aspire to be a stand-alone profession. Clearly, the
intersections between the role of sport coaches and others operating within the field
and in related fields is substantial and should be further explored (for example,
performance managers and directors; team managers; sport administrators; physical
education teachers; sport scientists; mentors; fitness coaches and instructors; sport
leaders and 'animateurs'). Dick (2011) has suggested that over the course of time,
coaching pathways tend to cluster around five main trajectories: practitioner roles;
practitioner specialist roles (such as children, talent, disability); educator roles;
leadership roles (such as head coach) and synthesiser roles (such as performance
management), which provides a useful basis upon which to consider professional
development and career opportunities.
The dilemmas identified within this section, while challenging, open the possibility of
a new, clearer and more confident identity for sport coaching as a blended
professional area, operating within a broader community of sport and physical activity
professionals. The final section of the paper suggests some actions that might be taken
in an international context to further develop this opportunity.
5. Future directions for sport coaching as a blended professional area
Building on the analysis outlined in this paper, a series of actions are suggested to
guide the future direction of sport coaching as part of a process of professionalisation.
The criteria associated with the traditional professions are used as a point of reference
in Table 2 to position these actions, with appropriate variations suggested based on
the unique nature of sport coaching and the preferred option of creating a strong
professional identity within a blended model.
The presentation of these indicative actions at an international level provides the basis
for further dialogue and development, as well as a reference point for sport and
26
country specific application. Within ICCE, it is intended that the indicative actions
will inform the on-going work of the organisation, as well as providing a clear
direction on possible areas for further research and development. As with Table 1,
content has been generated by the authors through their work across a range of
countries and contexts; from the review of literature and from the ICCE strategy and
related discussions.
Table 2
Future directions for sport coaching as a blended professional area
Criterion
Indicative actions at international level
Purpose: Defined purpose and
‘crucial’ social function, taking
responsibility for the welfare,
health and safety of the
community it serves
Create an agreed International Sport Coaching Framework,
building on the Rio Maior convention and with the engagement
of leading organisations and international federations around
globe; position this work within the wider field.
The International Sport Coaching Framework should define
sport coaching, standard occupations, domains, roles and status
categories.
Knowledge: Defined body of
knowledge and skill, derived
from education, training and
research
Knowledge:
Education,
certification, qualifications at
degree level, experience and
code of conduct
A strong publications and communication strategy should be
put in places, including the development of an International
Sport Coaching Framework (a detailed technical document) and
International Sport Coaching Handbook (a document with core
messages for federations, coaches and the public) for reference
and adaptation by each sport and country.
Further develop research on coaching expertise and
development as they relate to different sports, domains, roles
and status categories. Refine education and training
programmes to reflect a research-informed and applied body of
knowledge.
Define the education, certification and qualifications that are
appropriate for the roles; domains and status categories within
sport coaching.
Collect data on post-graduate qualifications, CPD and
specialisms/career progression in sport coaching.
Identify countries which have developed a system of
endorsement by professional bodies of sport coaching undergraduate courses (where appropriate identify examples from
other related areas).
Organisation:
Exclusive
group with privileges, a ‘right
to practice’, social and
legislative recognition
Develop and adopt a Code of Ethics for Sport Coaching.
Define the alternative to ‘right to practice’, for example the
‘right to earn pay as a coach.’
Promote the development of appropriate regulation at
federation, national, international level.
Promote appropriate legislative arrangements for the regulation
of sport coaching as a blended professional area.
Explore expertise and resources needed to provide an
independent disciplinary body (such as the General Medical
Council in the UK), which deals with disciplinary matters,
27
Organisation: License to
practice
with
on-going
continuous
professional
development
Organisation: Network
people and institutions
of
Ethics: Culture of norms,
symbols and values that
promote trust
suspensions/expulsion etc.
Define thresholds for registration and licensing.
Provide guidance on continuous professional development.
Define responsibility of professional and volunteer coaches in
supporting the education and professional development of other
coaches.
Build on ICCE network and seek to formalise engagement of
key stakeholders as part of a more collaborative approach.
Networking with the broader professional area and with other
closely-related professions such as physical education teaching,
health-related exercise professionals, and government/policy
makers, particularly in the areas of definition of the field and its
sub-categories, CPD and advocacy around social/public
function/value.
Develop an International Sport Coaches’ Charter, building on
the consultative draft developed by Dick (2010) and amenable
to country and sport specific adaptation.
Draw upon research and practice in relevant institutions to
inform initial training and CPD in legal and ethical aspects, to
include law, sociology and sport ethics.
Recognise the role of power, sub-cultures and risk at individual
and organisational levels (as in Brackenridge 2001) as they
relate to the implementation codes of practice and challenging
inappropriate behaviour.
Establish core and CPD themes such as safeguarding children
and risk management on a more consistent basis.
Ethics:
Autonomous
and
ethical decision making by
practitioners
Ethics: Self regulation
Integrate anti-doping education into core and CPD programmes
for coaches, working closely with the World Anti Doping
Agency
Such decision making should be promoted through each of the
provisions outlined in this paper, particularly through research,
education, professional development and the implementation of
the Code of Ethics for Sport Coaching.
Support the development of coaches’ associations and/or the
full integration of the ‘voice of the coach’ into decision making
relating to coaching at all levels. This may include the creation
of alliances or confederations of coaches associations
Establish an authoritative mechanism where sport coaches can
advise and guide the development of coaching on a global basis
(a coaching senate or coaching advisory mechanism).
These actions represent a significant challenge for sport coaching at an international
level. More importantly, however, the primary challenge relates to the ways in which
individual sports and nations will further progress their coaching systems and the
professionalization of coaching in line with the respective needs of participants and
coaches in different contexts. The advantage of international dialogue and points of
reference is that different sports and countries can proceed with greater confidence in
28
the knowledge that there is an increasingly robust and shared international framework.
Within each of these sports and countries, it is possible to employ the dimensions
identified in this paper to assess the current position in the process of
professionalization.
In this regard, adapting the ecological approaches taken by Bronfenbrenner (1978)
and Carlson, (1993), as well as the coaching workforce scenarios identified by North
(2009), the position or ‘professional identity’ of each sport or country might be
charted on a continuum that includes Profession, Blended Professional Area and
Voluntary Service as outlined in Figure 3 and recognising the unique characteristics,
traditions and structures that prevail in each case. A key advantage of this approach is
that is recognises the many individual contexts that operate in sport coaching – from
the coaching domains, roles and status categories at the front-line, through sport and
country specific differences. It is this heterogeneity that has bedevilled efforts to
move the debate on sport coaching as a profession forward. The case, therefore, is that
at the international level (and in many sports and many countries), the dominant
identity for the professional area should be ‘blended,’ while recognising the existence
of ‘profession’ and ‘voluntary service’ identities.
29
Figure 3
‘Professional identities’ as a function of sport and national influences and
supported by international reference points (adapted from
Bronfenbrenner , 1978; Carlson, 1993 and North, 2009)
Coach-participant
interaction across four
domains
Individual sport
cultures, tradition,
structure liked to
international
federations
National social,
political, economic and
legislative context and
wider continental and
global influences
Identity categories
Profession
Blended professional area
Voluntary service
High proportion of paid
Majority of unpaid coaches,
High proportion of unpaid coaches,
coaches. High adherence
with substantial number of
with
on purpose, knowledge,
paid roles. Commitment to
Commitment to service, standards
organisation and ethics,
professionalization and the
and the value of volunteering for
comparable
targeted further
its own sake. No concerted agenda
development of purpose,
on professionalization.
to
established professions.
few if any
knowledge, organisation
and ethics.
International reference points
30
paid
roles.
The classification outlined in Figure 3 provides the basis for each sport and each
country to consider the professional identity category that is most appropriate for their
circumstances. At the same time, a clearer and more widely accepted set of reference
points will assist in the convergence, sense of common purpose and action advocated
in this paper.
This direction suggested above will be strengthened by a realisation that many
questions remain, requiring further research and analysis internationally, as well as
sport and country specific application. These questions include:
a. What is the culture and tradition of the sport/country?
b. What are the deployment profiles and identity categories within the
sport/country?
c. What is the role of sport coaches associations and how does this role relate to
national/international federations?
d. What is the difference between qualifications/national occupational standards
and a licence to practice?
e. Do we and can we have the independence, resources and expertise to provide a
body which has the powers to discipline, suspend or expel a member of the
medical profession? Could/should national and/or international faculties or
institutes of coaching carry out this function?
f. Would such a body recognise or interact with the different identity categories
outlined in this paper?
g. Are we in a position to provide an informed response to the question from
aspirant coaches: ‘What is my career progression, salary (if any), training CPD
and specialisms in sport coaching’?
h. Is there a threshold number among pre-coaches; volunteer coaches and
professional coaches which is enough to sustain all three groups in the longterm in a given sport, nationally and internationally? If so what is it?
i. Would and should a professional sport coaching body endorse and influence,
through review and approval, under-graduate and post-graduate courses in
sport coaching?
31
j. What can we learn from research into established professions and from those
who have engaged in professionalizing or licensing sport coaches?
k. Taking account of national and international economic conditions, how can we
pool our resources and partnerships across federations, universities, lead
national organisations and other agencies to support coach development across
the globe and to enhance CPD in less developed topics such as legal and
ethical aspects of sport coaching?
While this list is not exhaustive, it highlights that the current paper is part of a journey
and not an end point, prompting the need for clear further research and action. ICCE
and its partners should work actively with researchers and others to address the
actions outlined in Table 2 and the above questions as deemed appropriate in national,
international and sport specific contexts.
6. Conclusion
This paper has suggested the need for a shift in focus at an international level to
consider sport coaching as a blended professional area, operating within the broader
field of sport and physical activity. Such a stance should recognise that sport and
country specific differences exist as they relate to the professional identity of sport
coaching. A key implication is that the ICCE would re-consider the wording of its
mission to reflect this shift in emphasis. The fixed objective of the ‘development of
coaching as a profession’ would be, therefore, be amended to a more focused
objective of ‘blended professional area’ which recognises the respective roles of
professional coaches, volunteers and pre-coaches, supported by a process of
professionalization.
The adoption of a position of leadership by ICCE and its partners would provide a
clear template for adaptation according to the different needs of each sport and
country. This direction of travel should be supported by the intensification of a
research agenda that is rooted in the emerging professional identity and which has the
objective of making a difference to coaches and the participants they coach; the
development of such coaches; their career pathways and the coaching systems within
which they operate. The work of ICCE and its partners should provide robust
reference points which support and complement the unique operation of sport
32
coaching in different sports and countries. Over time, further common ground will
support the coherent evolution of sport coaching to play an even more meaningful
role in guiding the improvement of hundreds of millions of children, players, athletes
and participants across the globe.
References
Australian Council for the Professions. (2004). About professions Australia:
Definition of a profession. Retrieved 24, November 2010, from
http://www.professions.com.au/defineprofession.html
Australian Government. (2010). Australian Sport: the pathway to success. Canberra:
Department of Health and Ageing.
Badminton World Federation. (2011). Coach education framework. Retrieved 25,
June 2011, from www.bwfbadminton.org/coacheducation
Barber, B. (1965). Some problems in the sociology of the professions. In D. Lynn
(Ed.), The professions of America. Boston: Baedulus.
Barker. R. (2010). No Management is not a profession. Harvard Business Review,
July/August, 52-60.
Becher, T. (1999). Professional practices: Commitment and capability in a changing
environment. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Berliner, D. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. Mangier
& C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse
perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Beutler, I. (2008). Sport serving development and peace: Achieving the goals of the
United Nations through sport. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media,
Politics.11, 359 – 369.
Brackenridge, C. (2001). Spoilsports: Understanding and preventing sexual
exploitation in sport. London: Routledge.
Breuer, C. (Ed.), (2009). Sport development report 2007/ 2008: Analysis of the sports
clubs`situation in Germany. Köln: Strauß.
Broadbent J., Dietrich, M., & Roberts, J. (1997). The end of the professions?: The
restructuring of professional work. London: Routledge.
Brock, D., Powell, M., & Hinings, C. (Eds.), (1999) Restructuring the professional
organisation: accounting, health care and law. London: Routledge.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge,
Mass:Harvard University Press.
Brylinsky, J. (2011). Authenticating elite coaching competency: taking the national
standards for sport coaches to the next level. Presentation to the National Coaching
Conference. Colorado Springs, 23 June.
Burbules, N., & Densmore, K. (1991). The limits of making teaching a profession.
Educational Policy, 5 (1), 44-63.
Campbell, S. (1993). Coach education around the world. Sports science review, 2(2),
62-74.
Carlson, R. (1993). The path to the national level in sports in Sweden. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 3, 170-177.
Chaker, A.N. (1999). Study on national sports legislation in Europe. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe Publishing
33
Chelladurai, P. (1986). Professional development of coaches : Coach education
preparation for a profession. In: Proceedings from the VIII Commonwealth and
International Conference on Sport, Physical Education, Dance and Recreation.
London: E & F N Spon.
Coaching Association of Canada. (2011). 2010-11 Annual report. Ottawa; Coaching
Association of Canada.
Coté, J., Young, B, North, J., & Duffy, P. (2007). Towards a definition of excellence
in sport coaching. International Journal of Coaching Science, 1(1), 3-16.
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and
expertise. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 4, 307-323.
Crespo, M. (2009). Web-based education: An example of a platform for tennis
coaches. Presentation to the Petro Canada Sport Leadership Conference, Vancouver,
November 15.couver (Canada), 15 November.
Cruess, S., Johnston, S., & Cruess, R., (2004). Profession: A working definition for
medical educators. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 16 (1), 74-76.
Dasheva, D. (2011). Bulgaria: Coaching education, best practice and lifelong
perspective. Presentation to the Pathways in coaching excellence international
workshop, Köln, April 29.
Department of Culture, Media and Sport. (2002). Game plan: a strategy for delivering
government’s sport and physical activity objectives. London: Department of Culture,
Media and Sport.
Dick, F. (2010). The coaches charter. A consultative document developed for ICCE
following initial drafts within the IAAF. Retrieved 27, June 2011, from www.icce.ws
Dick, F. (2011). The coaches pathway. Presentation to the Pathways in coaching
excellence international workshop, Köln, April 28.
Digel, H., & Thiel, A. (2010). Vocational field of coaches in elite sports – first results
of a current scientific study. Press release of the German Federal Institute of Sport
Science.
Duffy, P. (2009). A vision for global coach development: The European and UK
example. Presentation to the Petro Canada Sport Leadership Conference, Vancouver,
November 15.
Duffy, P. (2010). Foreword. In J. Lyle. & C. Cushion. (Eds.), Sports coaching:
professionalisation and practice. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
Duffy, P. & Dugdale, L. (Eds.), (1994). HPER in the 21st Century. Champaign:
Human Kinetics.
Duffy, P., Hartley H., Bales J., & Crespo M. (2010). The development of sports
coaching as a profession: challenges and future directions in a global context.
Presentation to Petro-Canada Sport Leadership Conference, Ottawa, 18 November.
Duffy, P., Crespo, M., & Petrovic, L. (2010a). The European framework for the
recognition of coaching competence and qualifications - implications for the sport of
athletics in Europe. New Studies in Athletics, 25 (1), 27-41.
Durkheim, E. (1957). Professional ethics and civil morals. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Edwards, L. (2006). Power and Diversity in Public Relations. In proceedings of
Bledcom symposium, Communicating Europe. 7-9 July.
Ericcson, K. A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363406.
34
European Coaching Council. (2007). Review of the EU 5-level structure for the
recognition of coaching competence and qualifications. Köln: European Network of
Sports Science, Education and Employment.
European Coaching Council. (2007a). Convention on the recognition of coaching
competence and qualifications. Retrieved, 27, June 2011, from www.enssee.eu
European Commission. (2007). White paper on sport. Brussells: European
Commission.
European Commission. (2011). Developing the European dimension in Sport.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions.
Brussels, COM (2011) 12 final.
European Network of Sport Science in Higher Education. (1999). Framework for the
recognition of coaching competence and qualifications. Luxembourg: European
Network of Sport Science in Higher Education.
Federation Equestre Internationale. (2010). Exploring coaching. Retrieved 5, July
2011, from http://www.fei.org/solidarity/coach-education
Findlay, H. & Corbett, R. (2002). The key components of a profession. Coaches
Report, 8(3), p 25.
German Olympic Sports Confederation. (2010): Sport moves! Retrieved 27, June
2011, from http://www.dosb.de/fileadmin/fm-dosb/downloads/DOSBTextsammlung/DOSB_Image_GB_72web.pdf)
German Olympic Sports Confederation. (2011). Education and qualification – the
system of qualification of the German sports organizations. Retrieved, 27, June 2011,
from http://www.dosb.de/fileadmin/fmdosb/arbeitsfelder/Ausbildung/downloads/Broschueren/Flyer_Qualifizierungssystem_
der_Sportorganisationen_englisch.pdf
Government of France. (2000). LOI no 2000-627 du 6 juillet 2000 modifiant la loi no
84-610 du 16 juillet 1984 relative à l'organisation et à la promotion des activités
physiques et sportives (1). Retrieved 27, June, 2011 from
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/
Government of Canada. (2002). The Canadian sport policy. Ottawa: Government of
Canada.
Government of Ireland. (1998). Targeting sporting change in Ireland. Dublin:
Department of Education.
Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite sport development: policy learning and
political priorities. London: Routledge.
Girginov, V. (Ed.), (2008). Management of sports development. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hall, R. (1969). Occupations and social structure. Englewood Cliffs NJ: PrenticeHall.
Hardman, A., Jones, C., & Jones, R. (2010). Sports coaching, virtue ethics and
emulation. Physical Education and Sports Pedagogy, 15, 345-359.
Hartley, H.J., & Robinson S.J. (2006). Everest ethics; Developing an ethical lens:
Five ethical theories. Unpublished paper, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK.
Hawkins. P. (2008). The coaching profession: Some of the key challenges. Coaching:
an International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1 (1), 28-38.
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy and politics: a comparative analysis. London:
Routledge.
35
Hylton K. (2010). Sport development…a profession in waiting? Presentation to
European Sports Development Network symposium, University of Hertfordshire, 9
September.
Hylton, K., & Hartley, H.J. (2011). Sport development: a profession in waiting?
Leisure Studies Association Series, June, in press.
International Rugby Board. (2011). What are the IRB strategies for development?
Retrieved 5, July 2011, from http://www.irb.com/training/programmes/faq/index.html
International Table Tennis Federation. (2007). Level 1 coaching manual.
Lausanne:International Table Tennis Federation.
International Tennis Federation. (2009). Developing competencies for elite players
and coaches. Proceedings of the 16th International Tennis Federation worldwide
conference. Valencia, Spain.
International Council for Coach Education. (2000). Magglingen Declaration.
Retrieved 27, June 2011, from www.icce.ws
International Council for Coach Education. (2010). Building the coaching community
across the globe. Ottawa: International Council for Coach Education.
Kennedy, H. (1992). Eve was framed: Women and British justice. London: Chatto and
Windus.
Khurana, R. (2010). Why management must be a profession: a response to R. Barker,
No, management is not a profession, 11.10am blog Tuesday 20 July 2010, Harvard
Business
Review.
Retrieved
24,
November
2010,
from
http://blogs.hbr.org/hbsfaculty/2010/07why-management-must-be-a-profe.html
Kikulis, L.M., Slack, T., & Hingins, B. (1992). Institutionally specific design
archetypes: A framework for understanding change in national sport organizations.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27, 343-368.
Krejsler, J. (2005). Professions and identities: How to explore professional
development among [semi-] professions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 49, 335-357.
Larson, M. (1997). The rise of professionalism: a sociological analysis. New York:
Harper and Row.
Lindop, N. (1982.) Educational studies and professional authority. British Journal of
Educational Studies. 30, 157-160.
Lyle, J. (1986). Coach education: Preparation for a profession. In Proceedings from
the VIII Commonwealth and International Conference on Sport, Physical Education,
Dance, Recreation. London: E and FN Spon.
Lyle, J. (1999). Coaching philosophy and behaviour. In N.Cross & J.Lyle (Eds.), The
coaching process: Principle and practice for sport. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sport coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviour.
London: Routledge.
Lyle, J., & Cushion, C. (Eds), (2010). Sports coaching: professionalisation and
practice. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
Maguire, J. (1999). Global sport: Identities, societies, civilizations. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Maguire, J. (2005). Power and global sport: Zones of prestige, emulation and
resistance. London: Routledge.
Maguire, J., Jarvie, G., Mansfield, L., & Bradley, J. (2002). Sport Worlds: A
Sociological Perspective. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Mallet, C. (2010). Becoming a high-performance coach: pathways and communities.
In J. Lyle. & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching: professionalisation and practice.
Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
36
Meuken, D. (2009). The European framework of coaching competence and
qualifications: the case of the Netherlands. Presentation to the Continental Conference
of the International Council for Coach Education, London, November 19.
Mills, R. (1994). ‘The professionalisation of Australian sport: Practice and
Discussion. Leisure Options, 4 (2). 43-48.
Muckenhaupt, M. (2010). Information and knowledge management for coaches –
initial results of a scientific study. Press release of the German Federal Institute of
Sport Science.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2008) National Coaching
Report. Reston, Virginia: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
National Association of Sport and Physical Education. (2011). Careers in coaching.
Retrieved 25, June 2011, fromWww.aahperd.org/naspe/careers/coaching.cfm
Nordmann, L. (2008). The European framework of coaching competence and
qualifications: the case of Germany. Presentation to the Continental Conference of the
International Council for Coach Education, London, November 19.
Nordmann, L., & Sandner, H. (2009). The Diploma coaches study at the Coaches
Academy Cologne of the German Olympic Sport Federation – current state and new
developments. International Journal of Coaching Science, 3 (1), 69 – 80.
North, J. (2009). The UK coaching workforce. Leeds: sports coach UK.
Olympic Solidarity. (2011). High performance athletes: top quality coaches. Retrieved
5, July, 2011 from http://www.olympic.org/content/the-ioc/commissions/olympicsolidarity/world-programmes/?tab=1
Parrish, R. (2003). Sports law and policy in the European Union. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Patton, M. (1994). Professionalism. Journal of Systems Management, December,
1-23.
Perkin, H. (1985). The teaching profession and the game of life’ in P. Gordon (Ed.), Is
teaching a profession? (pp12-25). London: University of London Institute of
Education.
Petry,K., Froberg, K., Madella, A., & Tokarski, W. (2008). Higher education in
Europe: from labour market demand to training supply. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Pickard, S. (2009). ‘The professionalisation of general practitioners with a special
interest: Rationalisation, restratification and governmentality. Sociology, 43, 250-267.
Portuguese Council of Ministers (2008). National Program for Coaches´ Education.
Decree-Law 248-A/2008. Lisbon: Government of Portugal.
President’s Council on Fitness, Sport and Nutrition. (2011). President’s Council
Quarterly, May, 1.
Professional Golfers’ Association. (2011). Coaching. Retrieved 25, June, 2011, from
www.pga.info/coaching
Reed, M., & Anthony, P. (1992). Professionalising management and managing
professionalisation: British Management in the 1980s. Journal of Management, 29,
591-611.
Republic of South Africa. (1998). National Sport and Recreation Act, 1998.
Government Gazette 402, No 19551. Cape Town.
Rostrok, S.S. (2009). Global initiatives in the coaching field. An International Journal
of Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 76-85.
Sam, M.P. (2005). The makers of sport policy: a (task) force to be reckoned with.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 22, 78-99.
37
Smith, C.T., & Westerbeek H.M. (2004). Professional sport management education
and practice in Australia. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Practice
Paper, 3, (2) 38-45.
Sockett, H. (1985). Towards a professional code in teaching. In P. Gordon (Ed.), Is
Teaching a Profession? (pp 26-43). London: University of London Institute.
Sommerlad, H. (2003). Women Solicitors in a fractured profession: intersections of
gender and professionalism in England and Wales. International Journal of the Legal
Profession, 10, 213-234.
Sommerlad, H. (2009). Discourses of Diversity, merit and exclusionary practices:
barriers to entry and progression. In L. Cooper & S. Walters (Eds.), Critical
perspectives, lifelong learning and work. London: Human Sciences Research Council.
Soucie, D. (1994). The emergence of sport management as a professional occupation:
A North American perspective. European Journal of Sport Management, 2 (4), 13-30.
South African Sport Confederation and Olympic Committee. (2010). Consultation
document on the South African Coaching Framework. Johannesburg: South African
Sport Confederation and Olympic Committee.
Sport and Recreation South Africa. (2011). White paper on sport and recreation.
Pretoria: Sport and Recreation South Africa.
sports coach UK. (2008). The UK coaching framework. Leeds: Coachwise.
Stirling, A., Kerr, G, & Cruz, L. (2009). An Evaluation of the NCCP module- making
ethical decisions. Report submitted to Coaching Association of Canada.
Taylor, B., & Garrat, D. (2008). The Professionalisation of Sports Coaching in the
UK: Issues and conceptualisation. Manchester: Manchester Met University.
Taylor, B., & Garrat, D. (2010.) The professionalization of sports coaching:
definitions, challenges and critique. In J. Lyle, J. C. Cushion (Eds.) Sports coaching:
professionalisation and practice. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
Tobin, N. (2004). Can the professionalisation of the UK public relations industry
make it more trustworthy? Journal of Communication Management, 9 (1), 56-64.
Trudel, P., Gilbert, W. & Werthner, P. (2010). Coach education effectiveness. In J.
Lyle, J. & C. Cushion, (Eds), Sports coaching: professionalisation and practice.
Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
UK Sport.(2001). The UK vision for coaching. London: UK Sport.
UK Sport. (2011). International Coach Education Systems. Retrieved 27, June, 2011
from http://www.uksport.gov.uk/pages/ices/
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (2011). Coach education news.
Retrieved 25, June 2011, from
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/footballdevelopment/coachingeducation/news/
index.html
Vollmer, H., & Mills, D. (Eds,), (1966). Professionalisation. New Jersey: PrenticeHall.
Warrior, R. (2002). Reflections of an educational professional. Practice Paper.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure and Tourism, 1 (2), 57-62.
Wilensky, H.L. (1964). The professionalisation of everyone. American Journal of
Sociology, 70 (2), 137-158.
Williams, J. (1998). What makes a profession a profession? Professional Society, 43
(1), 18.
Woodman, L. (1993). Coaching: A science, an art, an emerging profession. Sport
science review, 2(2), 1 - 13.
World Anti-Doping Agency (2011). CoachTrue. Retrieved 27, June, 2011 from
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Education-Awareness/
38
39